$49.99
Research Studies:
FREE Shipping on
orders over $200
ALL ARTICLES AND PRODUCT INFORMATION PROVIDED ON THIS WEBSITE ARE FOR INFORMATIONAL AND EDUCATIONAL PURPOSES ONLY. The products offered on this website are intended solely for research and laboratory use. These products are not intended for human or animal consumption. They are not medicines or drugs and have not been evaluated or approved by the FDA to diagnose, treat, cure, or prevent any disease or medical condition. Any form of bodily introduction is strictly prohibited by law.
BPC-157 5mg is a research-use-only laboratory material supplied for controlled research workflows, compound characterization, and analytical documentation review. It is manufactured under rigorous quality standards to support consistency, traceability, and batch-specific verification for qualified laboratory settings.
BPC-157 5mg is intended strictly for laboratory research use only. This product is not intended for human or animal consumption, therapeutic use, diagnostic use, clinical use, veterinary use, or as a food, drug, cosmetic, dietary supplement, or household product.
| CAS No. | 137525-51-0 |
|---|---|
| Purity | ≥99% |
| Molecular Formula | C62H98N16O22 |
| Molecular Weight | 1419.535 g/mol |
| Sequence | Gly-Glu-Pro-Pro-Pro-Gly-Lys-Pro-Ala-Asp-Asp-Ala-Gly-Leu-Val |
| Synthesis | Solid-phase synthesis |
| Format | Lyophilized powder |
| Solubility | Soluble in water or 1% acetic acid |
| Stability & Storage | Stable for 24 months at -20°C in lyophilized form. After reconstitution, store at 4°C for up to 2 weeks or -20°C for up to 6 months. |
| Appearance | White crystalline powder |
| Shipping Conditions | Shipped at room temperature. Upon receipt, store at -20°C |
| Regulatory/Compliance | Complies with research use only standards. Not for drug, household, or other uses. |
| Safety Information | Refer to MSDS; handle according to established laboratory safety procedures |
Consider these supplementary peptides for a comprehensive research approach.
Pure Lab Peptides created this guide for research buyers who want to buy BPC-157 for research while keeping procurement, documentation, and literature review strictly research-use-only. BPC-157 is discussed here as a research peptide with compound-identity, purity, COA, and analytical-testing considerations, not as a consumer product. Published literature can help define research context, but it should not be converted into product-use claims.
Researchers evaluating where to buy BPC-157 for research should first review RUO labeling, batch-specific COA documentation, peptide purity data, LC-MS or equivalent identity support, lot traceability, and supplier documentation consistency. Products discussed in this article are intended for laboratory research use only and are not intended for human or animal consumption. Literature should be read as model-specific research context, not product guidance.
The phrase “buy BPC-157” needs safer context on a research product page. The safer commercial phrase is “buy BPC-157 for research,” which frames the task as documentation review, not product-use guidance.
For qualified research buyers, the practical question is not a consumer question. It is whether the BPC-157 peptide listing is supported by research-use-only positioning, a batch-specific certificate of analysis, transparent purity information, and identity documentation.
The first documents to review are the product label, COA, lot identifier, analytical method notes, and storage documentation. These records should describe the same material in the same way.
A COA should not stand alone if the label, product page, and batch record conflict. For a research peptide, consistency across documents is a core procurement signal.
RUO labeling clarifies that the material is positioned for laboratory research, not consumer or clinical contexts. FDA guidance for RUO-labeled in vitro diagnostic products explains that RUO labeling is meant to identify materials in a laboratory research phase and distinguish them from diagnostic contexts [16].
For a peptide product page, the same principle matters editorially: the page should focus on compound identity, documentation, analytical testing, and literature boundaries.
BPC-157 peptide pages should be written for laboratory procurement and research documentation review. This article does not provide personal-use, clinical-use, cosmetic-use, fitness-use, or product-performance guidance.
The safest structure is simple. Define the compound, summarize literature carefully, explain documentation standards, and keep every claim tied to research context.
RUO positioning means the product page should help researchers evaluate documentation. It should not tell non-research readers what to expect from a compound.
A strong RUO page emphasizes batch-level records, COA availability, HPLC data, LC-MS identity support, lot traceability, and safe literature interpretation. Those elements serve commercial research intent without shifting into consumer copy.
Documentation creates a boundary between what the literature examines and what a product page can responsibly say. A study can describe an experimental model, but a product listing should not turn that model into a claim about a research material.
FDA’s current compounding-safety page notes concerns for BPC-157 involving peptide-related impurities and active pharmaceutical ingredient characterization in the compounding context [17]. For research procurement, that reinforces why characterization records matter.
BPC-157 is commonly described as a synthetic peptide and pentadecapeptide. PubChem lists BPC-157 under CID 9941957 with the molecular formula C62H98N16O22 [1].
Published BPC 157 literature also describes the sequence GEPPPGKPADDAGLV and a molecular weight near 1419 Da [2]. Those identity markers are useful for checking whether a product listing, label, and COA refer to the same target compound.
“Pentadecapeptide” means a peptide composed of 15 amino acids. For BPC-157, published literature identifies the sequence as GEPPPGKPADDAGLV [2].
The phrase “BPC” is often expanded in literature as body protection compound, but this page treats that phrase only as nomenclature. It is not used here as a product claim.
Naming matters because BPC-157 appears in literature as BPC 157, pentadecapeptide BPC 157, gastric pentadecapeptide, and stable gastric pentadecapeptide BPC 157. Those variants should point back to the same canonical compound record unless a document specifies a different salt, form, or listing.
Researchers should also distinguish the parent compound from acetate-associated records. PubChem lists a separate BPC-157 acetate record associated with the parent compound, which can alter formula and mass context in documentation review [19].
Published reviews describe stable gastric pentadecapeptide BPC 157 in relation to gastric-juice-derived research context and cytoprotection literature [2] [3]. That background is useful for understanding why gastric pentadecapeptide language appears in search data and research literature.
For a product page, the safer takeaway is documentation-based. The term helps identify the compound in literature; it should not become a product-positioning claim.
A BPC-157 product page should serve research procurement. That means it should answer documentation questions before scientific interpretation questions.
The best product-page architecture keeps commercial intent clear but controlled: buy BPC-157 for research, review the COA, verify purity and identity, and evaluate literature with model-specific caution.
Research buyers should compare the product name, lot number, COA date, stated purity method, identity method, and storage notes. These details should align across the product page, label, and certificate of analysis.
Supplier documentation should also indicate whether testing is batch-specific. A generic purity statement is less useful than a lot-matched record.
BPC-157 language should stay focused on peptide identity, published literature, analytical testing, and RUO positioning. Product copy should avoid implying that model findings are product outcomes.
A safe product-page sentence might say: “Published studies have examined BPC 157 in tendon fibroblast and endothelial model systems.” A less safe sentence would turn those model findings into a product-performance statement.
Published literature frames BPC-157 research largely through preclinical and in vitro models. Several papers discuss tendon fibroblast models, angiogenesis-related models, vascular signaling, nitric oxide, and endothelial pathways [4] [6] [8] [9].
That literature is useful for topical context. It is not a substitute for product documentation, and it should not be used as product-use guidance.
Preclinical and in vitro models can show how a compound behaves in a controlled research setting. For example, a tendon fibroblast model study reported changes in tendon fibroblast outgrowth, cell survival under stress conditions, and cell migration, with discussion of FAK-paxillin pathway involvement [4].
Model data can support research hypotheses. It cannot establish product claims for RUO materials.
BPC-157 research literature includes many model-specific findings, but evidence levels are not the same across study types. A recent evidence review emphasized that much of the available BPC-157 literature remains preclinical or early-stage and requires careful interpretation [11].
For product-page writing, that means every scientific statement should be framed as literature context, not a claim about a supplied material.
Cellular pathway research is the safest category lane for this page. It allows discussion of angiogenesis, endothelial signaling, nitric oxide context, and cell-migration models while avoiding consumer outcomes.
Researchers have examined BPC 157 in relation to angiogenic signaling, VEGF-related markers, and vascular model systems [6] [7] [8]. These topics belong in literature interpretation, not product claims.
Angiogenesis refers to the formation of new blood vessels in biological research. BPC 157 literature has discussed angiogenesis and angiogenic growth factors in experimental model systems, including VEGF-related context [6] [7] [8].
On an RUO page, angiogenesis should be described only as a research pathway. It should not be used to imply a product effect.
Nitric oxide and endothelial signaling appear in BPC 157 research as pathway-context terms. A Scientific Reports study evaluated BPC 157 in isolated aorta and discussed nitric oxide-related signaling through Src-Caveolin-1-eNOS context [9].
FAK-paxillin appears in tendon fibroblast literature as a pathway associated with cell migration in a model system [4]. These are mechanistic research terms, not product-positioning terms.
The phrase “gastric pentadecapeptide” appears because BPC 157 literature connects the compound to gastric-juice-derived peptide research and stomach cytoprotection concepts [2] [3]. That terminology helps connect database identity, historical naming, and literature retrieval.
Product pages should use the term carefully. It helps researchers recognize the compound, but it should not be used as a consumer-facing claim.
“Gastric pentadecapeptide” is a descriptive research term. It points to a 15-amino acid peptide discussed in gastric research literature, including the GEPPPGKPADDAGLV sequence [2].
This terminology can help research teams locate relevant papers. It does not change the RUO positioning of the product page.
Tendon fibroblast models appear in BPC-157 research because fibroblasts are useful for studying cell migration, cell survival, cell growth, and pathway signaling in controlled systems. The 2011 Journal of Applied Physiology paper connected BPC 157 model findings with tendon fibroblast outgrowth, migration, and FAK-paxillin signaling [4].
A later Molecules paper evaluated growth hormone receptor expression in tendon fibroblasts as a model readout [5]. These findings remain research-context findings.
A safer way to read BPC-157 literature is to sort evidence by type. Database records identify the compound; analytical records support material review; in vitro studies explore cellular behavior; preclinical literature explores model-specific outcomes; reviews summarize patterns and limitations.
| Research Area | What Literature Examines | Evidence Type | RUO Interpretation |
|---|---|---|---|
| Compound identity | Formula, sequence, naming, and parent-compound records [1] [2] | Database and literature record | Useful for label, COA, and identity review |
| Tendon fibroblast models | Cell migration, cell survival, and FAK-paxillin signaling context [4] | In vitro model | Research pathway context only |
| Angiogenesis context | VEGF-related and angiogenic-growth-factor discussion [6] [7] [8] | Model studies and review | Pathway relevance, not product positioning |
| Nitric oxide context | Endothelial and eNOS-related signaling in controlled models [9] | Mechanistic model | Literature context only |
| Analytical documentation | HPLC, chromatograms, specificity, selectivity, and orthogonal methods [12] [13] | Analytical chemistry guidance | Supports documentation review |
Lab teams should ask what model was studied, what endpoint was measured, and what the study can actually support. A tendon fibroblast finding, for example, belongs to a tendon fibroblast model.
This approach keeps BPC-157 research specific. It avoids turning pathway relevance into a broad product claim.
Product pages should acknowledge that model-specific literature has limits. A review can summarize patterns across BPC-157 studies, but a product page should still separate the review’s discussion from research-material positioning [10] [11].
The safest editorial rule is direct: describe what researchers examined, cite the source, and avoid expanding the finding beyond the model.
A pathway term is not a product claim by itself. Angiogenesis, nitric oxide, endothelial signaling, vascular endothelial growth factor, and FAK-paxillin can all be research terms when tied to model-specific literature [4] [6] [9].
They become risky when separated from research context. RUO content should keep them anchored to citations, models, and documentation.
The key research boundary is simple. Published literature can inform compound context, but product pages should not present literature findings as product effects.
Some search and literature phrases can drift into clinical-use language if framed as product positioning. RUO content should keep those phrases separate from procurement copy and focus on compound identity, COA review, analytical testing, lot traceability, and labeling.
Commercial search terms often mix buying intent with research terms. The safe route is to qualify buy-intent with research context.
“Buy BPC-157 for research” is safer than an unqualified commercial phrase because it directs attention toward laboratory procurement and documentation review. The page should then follow through with RUO content.
Product-page copy should emphasize what a research buyer can verify. That includes the compound name, lot number, COA, HPLC record, LC-MS identity support, storage notes, and supplier documentation.
It should also explain what the page does not do. It does not convert model findings into consumer guidance.
Literature context belongs in a scientific background section. Product positioning belongs in documentation, purity, identity, and procurement sections.
This separation protects both clarity and compliance. It also makes the page more useful for qualified researchers because it shows exactly what is supported by literature and what is supported by product documentation.
Common misunderstandings to correct:
A certificate of analysis is one of the most important product-page records for a research peptide. It should connect the listed compound with batch-specific data.
For BPC-157, useful COA review focuses on identity, purity, analytical method, lot number, COA date, and supplier documentation. ICH Q2(R2) states that analytical procedures should be evaluated for characteristics such as specificity, selectivity, range, accuracy, precision, and robustness where applicable [13].
Researchers should look for a lot number, compound name, testing date, purity result, method name, chromatogram reference, and identity-support note. When an analytical procedure is used for identity or purity review, the method should be fit for its intended purpose [13] [14].
A COA that only lists a general purity percentage is less informative than one that links the result to a batch and method.
Batch-specific documentation lets research teams connect a product listing to a defined lot. That connection is central to traceability.
A useful review asks whether the product page, label, COA, and supplier records identify the same BPC-157 material. If they do not, procurement teams should resolve the mismatch before selection.
Third-party tested documentation can add confidence when the method, lab, date, and lot relationship are clear. The key is transparency.
Third-party testing should not be treated as a slogan. It should be supported by records that researchers can review.
Peptide purity review should focus on the analytical method and the document trail. HPLC is commonly used for peptide separation and purification workflows, including reversed-phase approaches for peptide analysis [12].
A purity percentage is useful only when the method context is visible. Researchers should look for chromatogram data, peak labeling where available, and lot-level connection.
HPLC can help separate peptide-related components and support purity review through chromatographic data [12]. ICH Q2(R2) also notes that representative data such as chromatograms can help demonstrate specificity for assay, purity, or impurity tests [13].
For BPC-157 research procurement, the practical question is whether the HPLC record is linked to the batch being evaluated.
Useful chromatogram details can include retention time, peak shape, peak area reporting, method conditions, and clear connection to the sample record. ICH Q2(R2) emphasizes that representative analytical data should identify relevant components where appropriate [13].
Chromatogram review does not replace identity testing. It supports one part of the documentation package.
LC-MS combines liquid chromatography with mass spectrometry, making it useful for identity-oriented analytical review. In peptide work, mass spectrometry can help evaluate mass-to-charge information and support peptide identification when paired with suitable reference data [15].
For BPC-157, LC-MS should be treated as part of a documentation workflow. It is strongest when paired with batch records, sequence expectations, and COA consistency.
LC-MS can support peptide identity confirmation by comparing mass-related signals with expected compound information. FDA’s ICH M10 guidance discusses validation elements for chromatographic methods, including selectivity, specificity, accuracy, precision, carryover, stability, and related performance elements [15].
Published analytical literature has also used mass-spectrometry workflows to identify BPC 157 and related signals in controlled laboratory analysis [18].
Molecular weight and sequence data help connect the product listing to the expected compound identity. For BPC-157, the GEPPPGKPADDAGLV sequence and approximate 1419 Da molecular weight are useful cross-checks against literature and database records [2].
Sequence and mass data are not marketing copy. They are documentation anchors.
Lot traceability connects a research material to a specific batch record. Without that connection, a COA may not prove that the listed material and tested material are the same.
For product-page review, traceability is practical. It helps research teams compare the product page, label, COA, and storage notes.
Research buyers should review lot traceability because analytical records are most useful when they map to the material being evaluated. A lot number should appear consistently across the COA and supplier documentation.
If a supplier updates a COA or product listing, the lot relationship should remain clear. That prevents documentation drift.
Label consistency supports material review by showing that product name, lot number, and research-use-only status align. It also helps prevent confusion between BPC-157, BPC 157, pentadecapeptide BPC 157, and any salt-specific listing.
For procurement teams, the label and COA should tell the same story.
Storage documentation should describe how the material is intended to be maintained in a laboratory inventory system. It should not provide personal-use guidance.
For peptide research materials, storage records can support chain-of-custody review, inventory control, and documentation consistency. They also help research teams preserve the integrity of their internal records.
Storage records may include stated storage condition, lot number, product name, COA date, receipt date, and internal inventory notes. ICH Q14 emphasizes analytical procedure development and lifecycle knowledge management for quality-related assessments [14].
For a product-page reader, the key is whether storage notes align with the label and documentation. Mixed or unclear records should be clarified before procurement.
Before researchers buy BPC-157 for research, the review should be documentation-first. A strong procurement workflow checks the product page, COA, purity record, identity support, lot traceability, and RUO label.
Quality and documentation checklist:
Numbered lab-test verification workflow:
The most useful records are the product label, batch-specific COA, HPLC purity documentation, LC-MS identity support, lot traceability, storage notes, and supplier documentation. Analytical guidance such as ICH Q2(R2) and ICH Q14 supports the broader principle that methods should be fit for purpose and properly documented [13] [14].
Pure Lab Peptides product-page content should help research buyers evaluate those records without shifting into non-research positioning.
Pure Lab Peptides frames BPC-157 as a research peptide for laboratory documentation review. The page should focus on COA availability, peptide purity, identity verification, lot traceability, and RUO labeling.
Pure Lab Peptides supplies compounds for laboratory research use only. Products are not intended for human or animal consumption, diagnostic use, therapeutic use, clinical use, veterinary use, or as food, drugs, cosmetics, dietary supplements, or household products. Researchers are responsible for ensuring lawful, appropriate handling and use in accordance with applicable regulations and institutional guidelines.
Review the product-page documentation, COA details, and RUO labeling before evaluating this compound for laboratory research.
BPC-157 peptide is described in research literature as a synthetic 15-amino-acid research peptide. Published records associate BPC-157 with the peptide sequence GEPPPGKPADDAGLV and a defined molecular formula, which can support compound characterization and documentation review [1] [2]. On an RUO product page, those details help researchers compare label, COA, and identity records.
Gastric pentadecapeptide BPC 157 is a research-literature naming variant for BPC-157. The term reflects literature context connected to gastric peptide research, including descriptions of a synthetic peptide derived from a naturally occurring sequence discussed in gastric-juice-related research [2]. For product-page review, the term should be treated as compound-identity context, not as product positioning.
Researchers should consider documentation before they buy BPC-157 for research. Key review points include RUO labeling, batch-specific COA records, lot traceability, peptide purity data, peptide identity support, and supplier documentation consistency. The goal is to confirm that product records describe the same research material across the label, COA, and analytical documentation.
BPC-157 literature should be interpreted as research context, not product-use guidance. In vitro and preclinical literature may discuss cell proliferation, pathway models, or experimental endpoints, but those findings should stay tied to the model being studied. RUO product pages should keep the focus on published literature boundaries, compound identity, analytical testing, and documentation review.
Storage documentation should accompany BPC-157 research materials as part of the laboratory record. Useful records may include product name, lot number, COA date, storage condition, receipt date, and internal inventory notes. This type of documentation helps technical teams maintain a consistent chain of product records without shifting into personal-use or clinical-use guidance.
Chromatogram review supports BPC-157 documentation by helping researchers evaluate peptide purity records in connection with a batch-specific COA. HPLC chromatograms can provide method-linked purity information, while LC-MS records may support peptide identity review when paired with suitable reference data [13] [15]. These records are documentation tools, not product claims.
The following authors are recognized for published research that helped shape the scientific context discussed in this article.
Author profile: ORCID
Predrag Sikiric is recognized because several publications in the article’s source set discuss stable gastric pentadecapeptide BPC 157, gastric cytoprotection, nitric oxide-system literature, and broader peptide research context. His work helps explain why “gastric pentadecapeptide” terminology appears in BPC-157 literature and why product pages should treat that language as compound-context information for research purposes. His publications also support a source quality filter for separating model-specific literature from product-page claims. This recognition relates to scientific background and literature interpretation within the RUO research lane. That makes his work relevant to BPC-157 identity, nomenclature, and pathway-focused article framing.
Selected publications:
Author profile: Chang Gung Memorial Hospital
Wen-Chung Tsai is recognized because his co-authored BPC-157 publications are directly relevant to the article’s cellular pathway research lane, especially tendon fibroblast outgrowth, cell survival, cell migration, and receptor-expression context. His work helps frame how in vitro research can be discussed without converting model observations into product positioning. The article’s discussion of peptide identity, research documentation, and literature boundaries benefits from this model-specific foundation. His publications are included here for their relevance to BPC-157 research literature and controlled interpretation, not as commercial product support. This makes the work especially useful for readers comparing published literature with RUO-focused documentation.
Selected publications:
This research disclaimer clarifies how this page handles published literature and search language around BPC-157. In Cellular Pathway Research content, phrases such as tissue repair, tissue healing, wound healing, functional recovery, collagen deposition, oral stability, absorption, bioavailability, efficacy, and peptide therapy can drift into consumer-facing, wellness, clinical-use, therapeutic-use, or product-claim language when framed incorrectly. Terms such as safety profiles and peptide supplements also require careful separation from RUO product-page positioning.
Here, those phrases are handled only as research-language examples, not intended applications, outcomes, instructions, or recommendations. The focus remains on BPC-157 compound identity, COA review, analytical testing, peptide purity, lot traceability, research-use-only labeling, product documentation, and published literature boundaries. Model-specific research context should stay separate from product positioning, especially when boundary-sensitive terminology appears in search behavior or scientific discussion.
Our team is ready to assist you with any inquiries regarding our catalogue of peptides and their applications.
Discount Applied Successfully!
Your savings have been added to the cart.
There are no reviews yet.